Battle of Peter the Greats!!

Who would you say was better? Peter Stastny or Peter Forsberg? Both had great players to play with like Goulet and Sakic respectively. Both had great playmaking abilities and were among the best of all time. Now in no way am I asking who has had the better career because the answer would be obviously Stastny, rather who had the best pure talent? Discuss!

Well, if I had to choose one, it would be Forsberg. Although he can be a little whiny, his play on the ice is amazing. When healthy, he can dominate any type of game. Whether it's clutch and grab, hard hitting, or wide open, he's always effective...Also, he makes the other players around him better (i.e. Drury, Nieminen and even Hinote on occasion).

I'm not going to answer this question because I'm too young to recall Statsny. I think it would be better if posters who were old enough to see both play and make a decision from that because I sense a lot of Forsberg votes from the younger generations.

Wasn't able to join the NHL until age 24 due to Communist Bloc restrictions.
Wasn't a big man but very strong and played a physical game.

Finished 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 12th, 6th, 5th during the first 8 years of his career.

He was never voted to a 1st or 2nd all-star team, but that says more about his contempararies (Gretzky, Trottier, Lemieux, Yzerman, Savard, Dionne, and Hawerchuk). The NHL has never seen a better frouping of center's at one time.

If I had to pick and take the player at it's absolute peak, I would give Forsberg just the slightest of edges (really just a coin flip).... but when factoring in durability etc. etc. Stastny would hold a clear edge.

Slight annoyance,
Sakic is on the same team yeah, but they haven't played together that much.

Stastny is before my time, but was he ever a top 5 player for as long as Forsberg has been now? (genuine question btw )

Goulet didn't play much with Stastny either. I'd take Forsberg in that he can be arguably called the league's best overall player while that wasn't the case with Stastny. Otoh, it wasn't his fault that Grets,Mario and Messier existed. Forsberg was more of a power player, I guess, very close call.

Stastny. 1000+ points in a decade, NHL record for points in a road game, one of only 5 players in history to have at least 6 consecutive 100+ point seasons. I can go on and on

For being one of the only weapons on the Nords attack throughout the 80's- and by far the best weapon- Stastny had to face constant defensive pressure. And as the stats show, it didn't slow him down one bit.

Stastny. 1000+ points in a decade, NHL record for points in a road game, one of only 5 players in history to have at least 6 consecutive 100+ point seasons. I can go on and on

For being one of the only weapons on the Nords attack throughout the 80's- and by far the best weapon- Stastny had to face constant defensive pressure. And as the stats show, it didn't slow him down one bit.

They're so close that I can't really argue either way. I do dispute the bit about the scarcity of weapons on the Nordiques. Stastny had his brother Anton on his line while Goulet and Hunter on the other line were formidable. There was always offensive depth whether it was McKegney,Ashton, Marian Stastny, Sauve or whoever. They were hell to see your team play against because of their attack. D and goaltending always killed them imo.

Stastny. 1000+ points in a decade, NHL record for points in a road game, one of only 5 players in history to have at least 6 consecutive 100+ point seasons. I can go on and on

For being one of the only weapons on the Nords attack throughout the 80's- and by far the best weapon- Stastny had to face constant defensive pressure. And as the stats show, it didn't slow him down one bit.

i agree with you. hasnt forsbergs inablilty to stay in the lineup eliminated him in this competition? he never has shown the consistency of stastny, mostly because of injuries of course. im not saying forsberg was incapable of doing it, it just never worked out. stastny's career in the end was more impressive. its similar to the gretzky/lemieux arguement. i think lemieux was better, but when everyone points to the bottom line, that gretzky wins out because he did it, not because he COULD do it.....they're right. same holds in this case.

stastny was just as dominant as forsberg has been, most people here werent around for it, so they assume forsberg has to be better - false.
its unfair for me to say forsberg is eliminated because of injuries, but i feel its enough to say its at least a draw, if not a victory for stastny.

Different eras, hockey is much more advanced now, and so are the players.

Clearly Forsberg is the better player, and IŽll base that purely on logic since IŽve never actually seen Stastny play.

Yes, we are talking about different eras but how is hockey much more advanced than it was 20 years ago? To take it a step further and claim that players are also much more advanced is ludicrous. They are in better shape, with more focus on strength. How else is Foppa much more advanced than Stastny?

like the other poster, I'll question your use of logic. (and no a 60 year difference in military technology is not a good analogy for a 10-20 year difference in NHL hockey).

Yes, we are talking about different eras but how is hockey much more advanced than it was 20 years ago? To take it a step further and claim that players are also much more advanced is ludicrous. They are in better shape, with more focus on strength. How else is Foppa much more advanced than Stastny?

like the other poster, I'll question your use of logic. (and no a 60 year difference in military technology is not a good analogy for a 10-20 year difference in NHL hockey).

Allstarteam 2005 Vs Allstarteam 1985 = 10-0

Well perhaps not that big diff, but anyway, those eras cant be compared. Players were possibly as talebted back then, but everything else evolved since then + the game is much more tactical and "tight" today.

Well perhaps not that big diff, but anyway, those eras cant be compared. Players were possibly as talebted back then, but everything else evolved since then + the game is much more tactical and "tight" today.

not in the all-star game

logically, if Stastny were to play in this era, he would be just as well conditioned and trained as modern players. do you really think a modern all star team would beat gretzky, lemieux, yzerman, messier, coffey, bourque, etc in their primes? brodeur would be our only hope, lol...

logically, if Stastny were to play in this era, he would be just as well conditioned and trained as modern players. do you really think a modern all star team would beat gretzky, lemieux, yzerman, messier, coffey, bourque, etc in their primes? brodeur would be our only hope, lol...

Gretzky is probably the best offensive player ever (duh), but defensively hes got nothing on guys like Forsberg, Sundin, Fedorov and lots more, and these guys could deliver offensively aswell. Right now we are in a drout where the current stars are on the verge of retiering while the "next ones" havent really gotten there yet. Granted Heatley, Kovalchuk and some other guys are almost there. 2000 is probably the best year ever in my eyes. AS 2005 would still beat AS 1985 any day of the week and twice on sundays.,

Gretzky is probably the best offensive player ever (duh), but defensively hes got nothing on guys like Forsberg, Sundin, Fedorov and lots more, and these guys could deliver offensively aswell. Right now we are in a drout where the current stars are on the verge of retiering while the "next ones" havent really gotten there yet. Granted Heatley, Kovalchuk and some other guys are almost there. 2000 is probably the best year ever in my eyes. AS 2005 would still beat AS 1985 any day of the week and twice on sundays.,

I'd love to put money on that.... not that either of us would ever lose the money, but still......

Well perhaps not that big diff, but anyway, those eras cant be compared. Players were possibly as talebted back then, but everything else evolved since then + the game is much more tactical and "tight" today.

Bottom line, in 1985 you were 8. Your ability to compare eras when you really didn't see one of them is limited.
There may be truth in what you are saying, I'm just questioning your ability to state so definitively things that you can't quantify about an era you didn't see.